| Focus: | Rapier
|
| Country: | Habsburg Spain |
| Famous Pract: | Jerónimo Sánchez de Carranza, Luis Pacheco de Narváez, Girard Thibault, Anthony De Longis |
is the conventional term for the Spanish tradition of fencing of the early modern period. The word literally translates to 'dexterity' or 'skill, ability', and thus to 'the true skill' or 'the true art'.
While is primarily a system of swordsmanship, it is intended to be a universal method of fighting, applicable to all weapons in principle, but in practice dedicated to the rapier specifically, or the rapier combined with a defensive weapon such as a cloak, a buckler or a parrying dagger, besides other weapons such as the late-renaissance two-handed montante; the flail; and polearms such as the pike and halberd.
Its precepts are based on reason, geometry, and tied to intellectual, philosophical, and moral ideals, incorporating various aspects of a well-rounded Renaissance humanist education, with a special focus on the writings of classical authors such as Aristotle, Euclid, and Plato.
The tradition is documented in scores of fencing manuals, but centers on the works of two primary authors, Jerónimo Sánchez de Carranza (Hieronimo de Carança, died c. 1608) and his student Luis Pacheco de Narváez (1570–1640).
Jerónimo Carranza's seminal treatise was published in 1582 under the sponsorship of Don Alonso de Guzmán El Bueno, 7th Duke of Medina Sidonia, but according to its colophon was compiled as early as 1569.
Carranza's work represents a break from an older tradition of fencing, the so-called or ('vulgar or common fencing'). That older tradition, with roots in medieval times, was represented by the works of authors such as (1474), Pedro de la Torre (1474) and Francisco Román (1532). Writers on took great care to distinguish their "true art" from the "vulgar" or "common" fencing. The older school continued to exist alongside, but was increasingly influenced by its forms and concepts.
After Carranza laid the groundwork for the school with his seminal work, Pacheco de Narváez continued with a series of other books which expanded upon Carranza's concepts. While Pacheco originally clung closely to Carranza's precepts, he gradually diverged from them in significant respects. This divergence eventually caused a split between followers of Carranza and those of Pacheco, essentially resulting in the existence of three different schools of fence in Iberia.
These new fencing methods quickly spread to the New World. Originally, this was the, but eventually included as well. Carranza himself was governor of Honduras for a time. authors and masters can be documented in Mexico, Peru, Ecuador, and the Philippines. Some degree of influence on the Philippine martial arts is highly likely, although this is an area that requires further research.
El Buscón (1626) by Francisco de Quevedo ridicules a student of Pacheco's Libro de las grandezas de la espada. The chapter ends with a mulatto fencing master who comments that "the book [...] was good but made more fools than skilled [fencers], since most did not understand it".[1] Quevedo also composed injurious poems against Pacheco.
In the 18th century, began a decline in popularity in favour of the dominant French school. This resulted in technical changes which become increasingly apparent by the beginning of the 18th century. By the 19th century, fencing texts in the Iberian Peninsula begin to mix concepts with ideas and technique drawn from French and Italian methodology. While underwent a kind of revival in the late 19th century, it appears to have largely disappeared by the beginning of the 20th century.
Technical hallmarks of the system are the following:
Perhaps the most important distinction between and other contemporary schools of fencing is its approach to footwork. Over centuries, fencing throughout Europe generally moved towards linear footwork, similar to modern fencing. In contrast, doctrine taught that moving directly toward the opponent was dangerous, and specialized in off-line footwork to either the right or left side to gain a more favorable angle of attack.
Another distinction is their approach to the relative value of cut versus thrust. The general lengthening of rapiers in Europe showed a clear preference for the thrust, relegating the cut to a distant second place., on the other hand, refused to make such a distinction, maintaining that the cut could be as useful as the thrust depending on the situation, adapting their weapons accordingly. Although fencers from the Iberian Peninsula developed a reputation for using very long weapons, the weapons used in were generally shorter than the rapiers used elsewhere.
Gradually, bladework in Europe was influenced by the works of Camillo Agrippa and successors, focusing on the use of four primary hand and blade positions, with an emphasis on the latter two., on the other hand, focused almost exclusively on a hand position similar to (thumb at 12 o'clock).
Throughout Europe, masters generally taught a much wider variety of guards than masters, who focused on the so-called "right angle", a position with the arm extended directly from the shoulder, forming a straight line from the point of the sword to the left shoulder.
Generally, uses a finer graduation on the degrees of strength on the blade. Where other traditions generally recognized two degrees of strength (forte and debole), eventually expanding this to three or four parts, authors wrote about 9, 10, or even 12 "degrees" or segments on the sword.
masters paid close attention to the methods of their contemporary counterparts, both within the Iberian Peninsula and outside. Pacheco specifically argues against the works of many Italian authors in his text (The New Science). Likewise, Thibault's work includes a section aimed at countering the techniques of Salvator Fabris. Francisco Lórenz de Rada's work also contains substantial coverage of how a should oppose an Italian opponent when using sword and dagger.